God, that makes me want to throw up every time I read it.
You know, in addition to what Diogenes pointed out in his previous post, I would add that there is a difference between merely talking about your personal sexual preference (which, in and of itself, I find repugnant [edit: I am referring specifically to pedophilia here]) and going beyond that to openly debate and advocate for the legalization of sex with children. If cesario needs to talk about that, maybe he can tape record himself saying it and then listen to it in the privacy of his own home, because I can guarantee that nobody else (besides, perhaps, other pedophiles) wants to hear about it.
I don’t care where he goes, as long as he shuts up about it on here. And I sincerely doubt that his posting on the SDMB is somehow preventing him from also posting on some pedophile message board somewhere.
But he gets negative reinforcement here on the Dope. That’s the point.
What you all are saying is, ‘go hide your disease, keep it out of our sensitive headspace.’, rather than accepting that this is a forum for open debate.
Why must he shut up? Why can’t you control yourself enough to scroll past his posts?
Actually, based on the tone of his posts, I think he likes the attention he gets here on the SDMB. Besides, we’re not his mommy or his therapist. Do you really think that a bunch of negative reinforcement from the SDMB is going to make him think, “Gee, maybe I shouldn’t think that sex with children is OK?” I think the best we can hope for is, “Gee, maybe I should SHUT THE FUCK UP about this topic.”
And to answer the question of why I can’t “control myself” enough to scroll past his posts: That would be a little easier if he would quit bringing his pedophiliac threadshittery into a bunch of unrelated or barely related threads. The Roman Polanski thread, for example, had nothing to do with the topic of whether children should be capable of consensual sex, until cesario came in and turned it into the cesario show again.
Umm the Roman Polanski thread is definitely about Pedophilia. People hijack things with their pet issues here all the time. His pet issue is kind of disgusting, to be certain, but if all of you ignored him at the same time it would be highly unlikely that you’d even see his posts quoted.
That, right there, is the problem. He is trying to legitimize his desires. He does not see them as wrong.
I cannot find any sympathy for that position. Unless I have completely misunderstood Cesario’s postings, it is hard not to infer that they would have sex with a child if they could get away with it.
He’s certainly hitting all the right buttons to outrage and offend and this type of extreme position is just the sort of thing that trolls love to stake out. I mean, zero to ten? That lower figure is purely for effect. He actually wrote that previously in one of his posts, then edited it out. I saw his post go up and was in the process of replying when I realized he’d removed the quote I was about to comment on. I think he was worried that such a statement made the trolling too obvious. Later, when he felt more confident in his trolling, he posted it again.
OTOH, he has also stated that the only thing stopping him from molesting children is that he doesn’t want to suffer the consequences. Also that violating an unjust law, which he considers laws against child molestation to be, is a moral duty. It’s just a moral duty he (allegedly) doesn’t carry out because he is not willing to suffer the consequences.
He waffled a little after he said it, and then went into attack mode, which is often a sign of recognition that one has said too much.
As I mentioned, he is mentally if not physically fapping it because he gets to discuss his perversions. Or maybe he is just a troll.
Okay, that’s seriously fucked up. Eeeewwwww. (As for “it’s their culture”, bullshit. “Culture” doesn’t make something automatically ethical)
What’s really creepy about his defense about the age aspect of the Polanski rape case? The victim would already have been past his age of attraction.
Where was the thread where he brought up the hypothetical about waking up and finding a six-year-old um, “performing” on him, and how when she was finished, he’d gentley explain that next time, she needs to ask permission – because most people aren’t “like him.” Or something like that – I can’t remember exactly.
(He also brings up that the trauma is due to “cultural shaming.”)
No, it wasn’t. It was about statutory rape, but the girl in question wasn’t prepubescent. Besides, even if she were underage, it was still rape because of the forcible element.
Mostly just responding to this because it’s here… Anyway, I agree that there’s a fuzzy line. There are probably plenty of 16 year olds who are at least as mature as 18 year olds, if not moreso. I can understand arguing that maybe it should be fuzzy like, for instance, always okay over 18, always wrong under 16, and case by case in between (note: not advocating that, just a supposition). However, he’s specifically advocated NO age of consent.
I agree with the second sentence here. I think unpopular viewpoints are great because it’s often difficult to understand what someone that is widely looked at as utterly repugnant can possibly be thinking. However, it’s only helpful if that person presents it in a helpful way. When someone puts forth a wildly unpopular view, like his assertion that age of consent laws exist to illegalize consensual sex, it needs to be supported.
This has at least not been my perspective. If he really wants to debate honestly about age of consent laws, then I’d like to see some evidence put forth to support his ideals. Does he think a 4 year old can meaningfully give consent to sexual advances? Maybe there’s some studies he can provide about the cognitive and emotional development of children that flies in the face of the common belief that 4 year olds aren’t as developed as adults.
Sure, I think some people are just skeeved out and want him gone. But I don’t think that just because he has an unpopular opinion and people don’t want to talk to him about it means that it’s necessarily some kind of witch hunt. He really comes across like he has some sort of serious psychological problems, and he’s not even attempting to keep it relevant. Someone upthread said something to the effect that he’d been in 26 threads and 24 of them he’d mentioned this. It’s the mark of someone who either has a very serious problem or is trolling; not someone who wants an honest debate about the ethics of age of consent laws.
If he’s honest the I would like him to either be debate it honestly, or shut up and get help. If he’s not, he’s a troll and still needs to go.
His stated Age of Attraction does seem to be rather broad, compared to many perverts I’ve observed in the past. I dunno, maybe he enjoys playing the field.
That being said, the “evidence” he cites to support his argument is in line with just about every pedophile advocate website out there, and his confrontational style is rather unrestrained and immature for someone who’s merely interested in stirring up the waters. So my guess is that he’s more of an attention whore, rather than a bonafide troll.
One can only speculate, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the mother’s telling her friends about the Very Nice Young Man who just moved in next door, and her children seem to adore him, and he has a lot of free time since he’s not tied down to a girlfriend or anything, maybe he’s available to babysit on the weekend?